The Sun. — London, England, 1838-08-23 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The word has gone forth to the working classes through out the country to hold public meetings to assert their al leged rights, and make demonstration of their strength. An abridgment of an account in the Aberdeen Herald of the proceedings at a meeting in that town on Thursday last will be found in another column. Strangers from Edinburgh were introduced, who had come to Aberdeen to plead in behalf of the principles embodied in the national petition ; and the principal speaker, Mr. Duncan, was, we suppose one of these Edinburgh strangers, for he "an nounced the intention of the working classes in Edinburgh to establish a True Scotsman, a newspaper which would fearlessly tell the truth," from which we may infer that Mr. Duncan, like a prudent Scotsman, on the principle of felling two birds with one stone, combines with a regard for the rights of the working classes, the promotion of a speculation of his own. In that word "fearlessly tell the truth" what room for comment! When was an unpalatable truth ever yet told to those whom he was addressing by a mob orator ? Judging of this future organ from the speech of its puffer, we can easily guess what sort of statements will be passed off for fearless truths in it. " According to the rule (that taxation should be the basis of representa tion), all who are taxed ought to be represented ; but the ten-pounders, while they are represented, have managed to shift the taxation to the shoulders of others ; and we never will have the mystery explained so long as they get you, simple souls! to submit to the tyranny, and listen to their talking and boasting of the integrity of the British Con stitution.—(Cheers.)" Now, with all deference to the working classes of Aberdeen, the middle classes neither' do nor can shift the burden of taxation from their own shoulders to those of the unrepresented. But we must not forget that the object of orators at a public meet ing is not so much to enlighten their hearers as to stimu late them. We insert a letter from a Correspondent, who subscribes himself "T. W Boddy," and who, as a Conser vative, thinks our reprobation of the principles advocated at meetings of the working classes, and our admission that the middle classes are justly entitled to pause before, on any abstract principles of right, they make common cause with such auxiliaries, are not in strict accordance with our objection to the predominancy of the aristocracy. Mr. Boddy tells us that the capitalist is in reality the aristocrat, and in that sense no doubt aristocracy ought always to be predominant. But we meant by aristocracy not a power measured by property, but the power of the owners of a par ticular description of property bearing a comparatively small proportion to the whole property of the country, who, from the imperfections left in the Reform Bill, possess, notwith standing, a large majority in one House, and the means of returning all but a majority to the other. Indeed, were Scotland and Ireland excluded, and the Parliament to have been strictly Engli s h, th e ar i s t ocrac y wou ld hav e possessed a majority in both Houses. Is this a state of things in which a Reformer can find satisfaction ? Would it not have been better that in the Reform Bill more influence had been given to great and wealthy communities, and less to small towns without industry, and at the mercy of certain families in their neighbourhood ? Would it not be better that the owners of the soil should not possess an absolute control over the trade and interest of the country by imposing re strictions on it s commerce , mere ly w ith a vie w t o enhance the price of corn ? The Globe, in commenting on our re mark, that the above state of things was evidence of im perfect work in the Reform Bill, observed, " that the work of parties in this country has always turned out in the end imperfect, and we trust that it will always be so. The per fect work of parties is the ruin of States. The perfect do minion of a party (were it that of the people) would be in finitely worse, in our judgment, than the present mixed state of affairs. To overturn the power of the aristocracy was never our object ; and we shall deeply regret if they choose to overturn it themselves. Such an overthrow, wrenching up the feelings of habitual respect in a people for re cognised and permanent superiorities, would be a revolution —and such a revolution as can never be passed through without bringing down a vast deal more than the power of the aristocracy. To destroy the habit of respect in the popular masses is to render all government impossible for a certain time." We know not exactly whether these obser vations are put forth in opposition to our own or not. It would rather appear the writer approves of the " political predominance of the aristocracy," against which our re marks were directed, in which case it would be difficult to understand on what principle he could advocate the Reform Bill, the object of which was to wrest the control of the elections from a particular class of proprietors, and to enable the owners of property in general to have a preponderance in the Hnuse of Commons. That which has enabled the Tories to repossess themselves of a great part of the power they enjoyed before the pissing of the Reform Bill, the fifty pound tenant-at-will franchise, and the continu ance of the right to freemen, was not the work of the authors of that measure, nor did they favour the alteration. Lord Althorp stoutly opposed the 50/. tenantry clause, on the principle that they to whom the franchise was given ought to be able to exercise it independently. The prin ciple of the Reform Bill unquestionably is, that the mass of possessors of property should have a preponderating in fluence in the House of Commons, and not a particular class of proprietors. But changes, not in the contempla tion of the authors of the Reform Bill, and introduced into it in opposition to their wishes, by a foolish junction be tween the Radicals and Tories, have given a preponderance in the English elections to the Tories. 13 this right and pr per ? The Reform Bill was no doubt a clang:rous experiment, for had not the Tories at lae yiel:led to their fears, the masses of the country must have been in motion, and there is no saying what might have been the conse quences of such a movement. But if the Reform B:11 has not led to the anticipated results, and the power of the old oligarchy has been ever since gaining ground, and threatens to have, ere long, a decided majority in the House of Com mons, we are exposed to the danger of future movements, from which we may not escape so happily as we did on the last occasion. It appears to us that if the principle of the Reform Bill had been better carried out—if greater influence had been given to the rich and populous com munities, and less to the small and decayed county bo roughs—if the 50/. franchise had not been be,towed and the nece,sitous freemen had not been sua!red to remain in possession of the suffrage, the great mass of owners of property would have possessed an influence in the House of Commons which would have proved our best security against the danger of future movements for or ganic change. The defection of the working daises, and their demonstrations, are not to be immetleoely appre hended. Bat it is impossible not to foresee that in the event of an election, in such a state of the public mind, the Tories would greatly gain by this schism. Though the work ing classes may not possess many votes, they yet possess the the means of influencing voters ; and Tory activity, and bribery, and intimidation would probably be much more suc cessful than at the last election. This is by eo means a com fortable prospect. No wise man would think ofobject ing to the influence of property and social distinctions. The rich man, too, has necessarily greater facilities for the acquisition of knowledge than the poor man, and the chances arc that out of equal numbers of poor and wealthy individuals a far greater proportion of the latter will be well informed than of the former. But the influence of wealth and knowledge and character are quite distinct from the influence obtained by the command of vent! voters and the intimida tion of the dependent. It is against this last de scription of influence that the Reform Bill intended to strike a blow, and that the influence still exists to a hurt ful degree is a proof that the Reform Bill did its work imperfectly. We are no advocates of a democracy which would give to the masses an overwhelming power, without any counterpoise ; and we agree with the able writer of the article on Bentham, in the last num ber of "The London and Westminster Review," that the future welfare of the United States will much depend on the circumstance whether there may be evolved any insti tutions of a Conservative character. But there is a wide difference between a pure democracy, in which the will of the numerical majority is omnipotent, and a House of Com mons, in which the majority is returned by the possessors of the mass of property, and not by a particular descrip tion of owners of property, chiefly by means of bribery and intimidation. Such a preponderance as is implied in the latter state of things is the tyranny of the few over the many, which is not less objectionable than the tyranny of the many over the few.—Morning Chronicle. Not many months ago it was confessed by a Radical print of considerable pretension that its party-doctrines bad unhappily .' gone out of fashion." With what pro priety this sort of stuff could be uttered concerning a set of political frenzies which had at no time been popular in the country, is a question that must answer for itself ; but certainly, if ever tlie Radicals could be justified in apply ing such language to dogmas so scantily patronized as theirs, it would appear that even among their own li mited circles the phrase " out of fashion " is equally applicable, now-a-days, t o most of their party-dema gogues. At the last city election a venerable Alder man, addressing a generation of younger men than himself, was fain to bespeak their suffrages, not by boasting o f hi s s y s tematic Radicalism , which he knew w ou ld h ave injured rather than served him, but by recounting his ancient magisterial services, as a surer basis o f success . O'C onne ll is obviously put to simi lar shifts to arrest his hastening decay. The superannuated pestilence feels that he is going out of fashion. Even in his native soil it is not without difficulty that he can now get up an occasional exhibition of himself, with a view to his customary prize ; nor, except by putting forth divers of his obsolete claims upon Irish notice, could he escape, for a single hour, his proper place in the political hortus us a high-dried specimen of his genus, the deadly night shade. The arts adopted by the learned nuisance to se cure a moderately decent reception at his late Dublin dis- plays, are somewhat too stale to be deemed dexterous ; and had they not been addressed to a class whose proverbial excitability always betrays their judg ment, those arts would doubtless have recoiled upon their practitioner in torrents of unmitigated scorn. After the usual introductory cant about his tender affection for Ireland, increased of course by tempo rary absence, he endeavours to storm the sympathies and pockets of his audience by reverting to his greener years of " professional success"—by reminding them of his faithful services as a valid title to corresponding wages—and then, as if hopeful that his anticipated shortcomings in purse and popularity might be partially averted by his knavish ad dress, he passes on, by a natural transition, from the griev ances of Dan to those of Dublin, whose abandonment by the wealthier classes he ascribes to that " foul Union," for the repeal of which, failing one solitary remaining experiment under the present state of things, he proposes to organise his millions into a vast parochial militia, who (albeit in a pacific and constitutional manner) shall meet and petition, or march and parade, till their national independence be achieved. Part of this sickening balderdash was com mented on yesterday by an intelligent correspondent ; but we venture to add, that the regret which O'Connell has expressed on account of Dublin being deserted by people of wealth is just a piece of elegiac finesse, conceived and whined in his own most unctuous style. Well does he know that if the wealth and intelligence of Ireland were ha bitually residing in Dublin, his own metropolitan domina tion, already tottering, would at once be brought to the ground, never more to rise. Could the classes in question (the vast majority being Protestants) be induced to brave the risks of inhabiting the deserted mansions of that city, they would presently extinguish the last spark of his influence there, with such a successful concentration of force as, when making a similar effort in their re spective counties, where they are necessarily weakened by separation, they can now exert with only partial, though increasing effect, by dint of Catholic co-operation. With such a reinforcement, unless nefariously counteracted by O'Connell's one-eyed Cyclops (the registration barristers) who act the part of vote-smiths to that political Vulcan, the Protestants of Dublin would soon convince the latter per sonage that, in spite of all his thunderbolts, his occupation there was gone. Nobody has a keener perception of this than himself. and accordingly, though pretending both to bewail the absence of the wealthier classes from the chief furnace of his machinations, and also to dc- . . nounce the systematic terrorism wherewith his myr midoms scare them away, his uniform policy all the while is merely to increase and prolong what he professes to lament, by the tortuous method of propagating principles which are incompatible with Protestant safety. Mean while, the same absenteeism is found to be otherwise useful to the learned Repealer, inasmuch as it furnishes 'aim with a new sophism and slander for prosecuting his anti-Union projects. The flippant way in which he attempted to as cribe the miseries of Ireland to the incorporation of her Legislature with that of Britain, is no further worthy of notice than as suppressing all allusion to his baleful self as the irritating blister which keeps those miseries running. On the question of repeal he has, during the last five years, babbled a world of mischievous nonsense, but always with the artful reservation that his proposed Irish Parliament should remain part and parcel of her Ma jesty's realm. It appears, however, that this pampered and dreaded traitor, to whom the Whigs have recently offered office, is at length exhibiting an audacity cor responding to the indulgence he has heretofore experienced at their hands. Formerly we may have had our suspicions as to his real designs, but now he leaves us in no doubt about them whatever. What he means by repeal (ac cording to his own broad insinuation) is actually this— that Ireland shall be brought into the same relative posi tion towards England as Belgium bears to Holland. " Never," says he, " did a repeal of the Union produce such results, such prosperity, as in Belgium ; if the Bel gians wanted aid, how many thousands of Irishmen would rally under their standard?" And if vice versa? Why, the answer, to be sure, must be guessed. Now, if this be not constructive treason of the most defined and atrocious character, we know not what is. Heaven forbid that we should do injustice in so serious a matter, even to O'Connell ; and as to the charge of constructive treason generally. it is one which in a free country ought never to be entertained, except on the strongest and most irrefragable grounds. The words we have quoted, if uttered by an uninfluencial and heretofore peaceable sub ject, might be allowed to pass. Even if proclaimed on this side of the Channel by an Englishman of some conse quence, not previously implicated in plans for the dismem berment of the monarchy, they might also be interprete d as involving no high crime or misdemeanor against the Queen's crown and dignity. But in the mouth of O'Connell, who tell; us that he is the leader of seven millions of Irishmen—who, night and day, is stirring up his country men to throw off the English yoke—and who asserts that if they " once shout out repeal, the country would be roused from one end to the other, and the willies of Ireland would re-echo the cry of freedom"—in the mouth of such a man, these treasonable words, identifying Irish repeal with Belgian revolution, bear a sig nificancy which damns him. That his Whig connivers trill quietly wink at such expressions, as in the case of Joseph Hume, who recommended the Canadian discontents to throw off the baleful domination of the mother country, there seems too little reason to doubt. But unless they deal impartial justice to this master rebel in another way than by inviting him to the bench instead of the dock, their prosecution of his journeymen, whether in Ireland or in the colonies, must be _licer tyrannical caprice. Let O'Connell be tolerated and Papineau outlawed, for one and the same crime, and the Whigs will not only put a premium upon a squirearchical rebellion, but outrage the solemn sanctions of law, by reserving them for inferior transgressors.—Times. A great Ipswich meeting was assembled last week, to unite in the popular demonstration which has just been ma nifested at Birmingham, Glasgow, Dublin, and the prin cipal districts of the country, in order to obtain Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and Annual Parliaments. The steam is getting up throughout the country ; and it is a di egnoAic of' no trivial character that 89 towns have al ready appointed delegates to meet in a metropolitan national convention. The exhibition of talent, sound thought, and good sense, by the operatives and artisans assembled at Ips wich was highly honourable to them, and is replete with admonitory intimations to the exclusive caste who detract from bumble merit—who mock or thwart the progress of mind—who deny equality of political rights, and think to retain such men as " hewers of woad and drawers of water" to the end of their career. Nor still the alarmist cry of " Wolf! wolf!" and of " Revolution !" be of any service in the midst of this great popular demon stration as it has been on former occasions, when less poli tical knowledge was diffused throughout society. No body of men are more interested in preserving social tranquillity than the operative class—inasmuch as the pie fits of their useful labour depend upon the undisturbed exertion of their daily industry. At the Ipswich meeting Mr. Macpherson, in proposing a resolution for Universal Suffrage, made the following emphatic and eloquent announcement, which we extract from the ample report of the Essex Times : " What arc the Working Men's Associations denominated, for endeavouring to secure their rights and liberties? De structionists—cut-throats, all that is vile, and all that is abo minable in the eyes of God and man 1 But we cast back these foul slanders on those who say so with contempt, and tell them we are the lovers and friends of our kind. We tell them we arc not for war; we are for peace. We want to see the sword beaten into a ploughshare. We want to see the man of property with that property protected, and we want to see the poor man protected in his poverty, eating his bread in happiness earned by the sweat of his brow. To those who would say that the working men are desirous for a scramble, and to upset the property of this country and her happiness, we say we disclaim it, and we cast back the insinuation with scorn. We are not destructives of good—we are destructives of evil." This is a f u ll an d sat i sfactory rep l y t o the canting calumny in daily and hackneyed use by the Conservatives , that all those w h o want to cut down the abuses which they havether very engendered—on s identifiedwhich a fatten—and ~ pe st rztc t w i u i t e l s v , which Nv e differ with the disclaiming Tories—we reject not g imputation of Reformers b ei ng the bseitneitaleg. on one point—as to the ructives made by the sense to the " soft impeachment." sw C .'t e e rt p a l i e n a ly d , g it uil i t s y th in e eoube ject of real Reformers to destroy all the abuses in Church and State. The people desire to destroy h all the vicious implements which bad Governments ig a h v t e as ac t c h u e m s u u l r at e e o d n . They are "Destructives" in the same l is, who destroys the cancer by going to its roots with his scalpel, when it would otherwise destroy the ho are D . estructivcs in the same sense as constables, justices, They magistrates, and juries are, when they break up ,j an s d ie d e e s, livestroy b y the l uhaunts andands machinationsend them o theof bad treadmill,characters, whoth debtors' door. But as regards the meaning which the Conservatives attach to the word " Destructive," viz., 1 that in the Reformers i ße n fo lpd rm u e a r n s t wa w n a t s t n o e d v e e s r tr t o h y ro p w ro n pe o rt u y t — b an imputa tiontcatching at any obsol e t e pre j u di ce to save themselves ap f a ro r m y destruction. The av owe d l ea d ers o f Reform ar y e s u e o s m t r e ts c . - f ' the richest men in the coun t ry , an d to charge as D lives men whose fortun e i s rec k one d by millions, voke a laugh from every man of common sense. Why should they destroy their own property? Why, indeed, should the working classes, who have l e s s money than others, be therefore more :destructive? A small pro perty to a man who has but little is as important and as dear to him eh the largest property is to the wealthiest individual in the country. Are not the hundreds possessed by the individual—who has no more to call his own—as dear to him as the thousands which the industry or luck of an aristocrat's ancestors —hot ids own—produced for his fortunate descendant ? In fact, the less a man has the more necessary is it for him to enjoy the THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 1838. social repose and security which may enable him to add to this little by the uninterrupted exertton of his daily industry. To him more than to a rich man revolutionary convulsion would be utter ruin. Away then, with the contradictory arguments which, by imputing destructiveness to the class of operative Reformers, impute to them a deficiency in forethought and prudence, and an abnegation of the ordi nary principles of self-preservation. The English public are too wise to be gulled by the interested imposthume of any such absurd imputations ; and they will persist in de stroying abuses—whatever sinister designation may be given to the wholesome operation.—ilforning Advertiser. Haying yesterday stated our opinion fully upon the pro priety of the refusal by the Dean and Chapter to allow the statue of the author of " Don Juan'' to be placed in Westminster Abbey, we need not go further into that question at present, inasmuch as our arguments re main unanswered. But, incidental to the main question, a point of debate has arisen touching the poetic merits of Lord Byron, respecting which we cannot avoid making a few observations. It has pleased some of our Contempo raries, both Liberal and Conservative, for instance the Globe and Standard, to assign to Lord Byron an inferior place in the ranks of British poets. The former of these Journals demands the admission of his statue into West minster Abbey, despite the mediocrity of his genius, be cause, we presume, a reverence for religion was not one of his " prejudices." The other alleges the inferiority of his talents, and the decline of his poetic fame, as an additional reason for excluding from a Christian church the sculptured tribute to his memory. We think the justifiable and all-sufficient ground for refusing his statue a place in the temple of our holy reli gion is that the poet prostituted his great talents to the ignoble service of the sceptic school, and threw a danger ous fascination round doctrines detrimental to man's eternal interests. We want no other reason than this to justify Dean Ireland in the course which he has adopted. If this does not afford a full and satisfactory justification of the alleged " illiberality" of the Westminster ecclesiastics to wards the memorial of the poet nothing else can. It is vain to rely on the mediocrity of Byron's poetic genius. The Edinburgh Reviewers made that discovery very early in his literary career. The Jeffries and the Broughams of that publication, not foreseeing that they were one day to have the misfortune of becoming " lords" themselves, were glad of the opportunity of catching a young Peer in the fact of attempting to climb Parnassus, and no juvenile poacher in another sort of preserve was ever belaboured more mer cilessly bya couple of inexorable gamekeepers than the poetic lord was by his unsparing critics. But he took a splendid revenge. By one of the ablest satirical poems in the lan guage he prostrated his critics, who sank to the humiliation of soliciting the suppression of a work thus terribly effective. No mediocrity of talent—no genius below that of a very high order—could have accomplished what Byron did at a very early age by the publication of the satire called " British Bards and Scotch Reviewers?' Never did mali cious criticism, conducted with considerable power, and until then truly formidable to all the authors who were not " pets" of the Edinburgh Areopagus, receive so severe a blow since the time that cynical Denis and facetious Gibber experienced the vigorous retaliation of Pope's sinewy arm. Public opinion immediately reversed the de cree which the criticism of the blue and brimstone livery had fulminated against the young patrician bard. The cul prit who, in the name of " gods, men, and columns," had just before been condemned to the perpetual mortification of the " silent system," came forth the laurelled victor from the poetic dock, and, followed by the acclamations of thousands, took his triumphal course up the heights of fame. His next effort, if we mistake not, was the " Childc Harold," a poem which we do not fear to say is not inferior to any descriptive poem in the language, whe ther we regard the graphic felicity of its scenic delinea tions—the beauty, richness, and pathos of the senti ments with which its sketches of nature are interspersed and relieved—the melodious rhythm of the verse, or the masculine force of the diction. Where does our language present nobler bursts of poetic inspiration than those which the sympathising wanderer breathes forth over the fallen state of the once and free glorious Greece, to whom all the arts of old did Homage, and into whose lap literature poured her sparkling treasures ? To be sure it is some drawback from the pleasure which this noble production of genius affords to be eternally " bored" with the solitary quotation which, by some means or other, the Irish Agitator has filched from a work the manly sentiments and generous patriotism of which he is as incapable of appreciating as he is of regulat ing his political conduct by any rules of justice, honour, or sincerity. He has, indeed, contrived to vulgarise one of the most magnificent appeals of Byronic inspiration by his stupid and unmeaning repetition of " Hereditary bondsmen, know ye not Who would be free themselves must strike the blow ?" Greece understood these words in their proper sense, and subsequently endeavoured to realise them by her revolution. In following Byron over the ancient scenes of classic glory—in treading the valleys and plains where the battles of ancient freedom were fought and civilisatio n triumphed over barbarism—we are made to feel what we can only describe in his own glowing and graceful words:— " Where'er we tread is holy haunted ground, No earth of thine is lost in vulgar mould, But one vast scene of wonders spreads around, And all the Muses' tales seem truly told." To turn from ancient to modern times, what scene in any poem surpasses for all the qualities of epic description the stanzas in the same work on the " Battle of Waterloo" beginning— " There was a sound of revelry by night, And Belgium's capital had gathered then Its beauty and its chivalry, and bright The lamps shone o'er fair women and brave men ?" The allusion to the fall of the Duke of Brunswick is in deed sublimely pathetic. In attempting to celebrate this greatest of modern battles Scott and other poets completely failed. Byron alone was equal to the task of investing the " crowning victory" with its appropriate gloom and glory. We are obliged to revert to passages like these--passage; , which we could multiply to a length which would occupy a larger proportion of Mr. Spring Rice's " superficial inches" than we have at our command—for the purpose of answer ing the traducers of Byron's genius—who represent him only as a fashionable not an immortal poet, and would place him below the level of Scott and Southey. Would that he had kept his muse as free from the contaminating intercourse of an infidel philosophy as that of t hose two distingui s h e d wr i ters , w h ose wor k s (with the excep tion of some juvenile p ro d uc ti ons o f o n e o f them) contribu te t o the happi ness o f man ki n d b y th e b e n e ficial cultivation of religion and mora lity. There is a well-known pas sa g e in Byron's " Giaour," beginning with the line " He who bath bent him o'er the dead," which would be worthy of Shak speere in the finest flight of his imagination ; but the spirit of the sceptic clouds it at the close, when he exclaims, al luding to the extinct vital principle " Spark of that flame, perchance of heavenly birth, That gleams, but warms no more its cherished earth." The faults of Byron's poetry are many and glaring ; but his beauties, like those of our greatest poets, are stamped with the i m p ress o f i mper i s h a bl e gen i us . In estimating his intellect ua l ran k we must j u d ge o f him as other great poets are judged —as Alilton and Shakspeare and Spe nser are judged—by their best works or noblest efforts ; and, estimating Byron's claims to poetic celebrity in this way, we need not fear that the prediction of his being a perish able fame will ever be verified while the English language subsists. It was therefore that yesterday we said, " when ever a national pantheon is erected to the memories of England's great men in arts, in literature, and arms, we should like to see the statue of Byron placed there among those of the first of England's poets." If he had never written anything else, that, the noblest of sacred odes, which commemorates the destruction of the army of Sena charib, commencing ceo e otvrne e ddo onlyr toen t nfhntrsaheoee necessary sstalstatue Deathayhnrrodyiscoesat of this to append compositionhi pas i pep r gpeer J uyne o dae h ptr tn productions utei on o tcfs o t moi r to e dm e ha p ne ' yecs i " The Assyrian came down like the wolf in the fold," tbiosl it :e o n: n tisgehp, uroteeafi perhaps,ocgptn N eae N:sd' passages ao l i t e euvw s s would of itself have immortalised him. With the xe r t of distempered intellect, or morbid ambition, such as ,6 C a i n ," " Manfred," or " Don Juan," to account for its exclusion from a Christian cathedral.—Mornin g Herald. It is a curious and noticeable fact, that Ministerialists busy themselves with the most extraordinary perseverance in decrying the last grand stroke of Ministerial policy before the adjournment of Parliament. Is it possible that their patrons are pleased with this perpetual objurgati on of that which by adoption (whether willingly or unwillingly) they made their own ? They tell us that the policy pursued in the House of Lords with respect to Lord Durham's Go vernment and ordinances, was rancorous and contempti'ide. If so, why did the Ministers take it up ? If it was" contemp tible"on the part of those who avow themselves Lord Durham's sive.uilld,phtb7ereeradrei political opponents, to correct his errors, and to keep him within the limits of his lawful authority, surely it must have been much more "contemptible" on the part of those who pretend to be his friends, to take up that very same course. It may be urged that even if they had not done so in the House of Lords, the decision of that branch of Parliament would have been the same, since Noble Lords are so obstinate that they will not listen to the voice of the charmer Melbourne, charm he never so wisely —nay, not even if he blandly attempt to win them over to his way of thinking by telling them that they are acting like a truculent democracy ! But how did it happen that in the House of Commons, where Ministers have—or at least have had upon some trying occasions— a ma j or it y . — how comes it that there also, the Ministers not only did not, oppupe, but actually adopted, that which Ministeli,listg now call a ranee), ous and contemptible course, of ? We know that upon very important occasions—and surely this was one—the Ministers have been able—with the respectable assistance of the O'Connell tail—to muster a majority almost equal in amount to the number of persons in the House whose salaries depend upon the Ministry being able to stay in. Now being in this proud position in that Honourable House— albeit they are not able to muster more than a poor mi nority in the other—it seems strange that they should not have taken advantage of it, to show their sense of the " contemptible policy" of the Conservatives respecting Lord Durham's Government. Really this matter seems quite inexplicable, and we recommend the Ministeriali s t s to refrain from vilifying the policy adopted by their patrons until they are prepared to show how Statesmen—be they even as profound as Lord Melbourne, and as dignified as Lord John Russell—can consent to the adoption of a eon, temptible policy without becoming contemptible them selves. We humbly submit that under the influence of nervous trepidation, or some other cause unfavourable to deliberate correctness, our amiable Ministerialists have made a confusion of persons and of epithets. The case was this—Lord Durham bad been sent to Canada with very large powers, but by the first despatches which came from him after he had entered upon the business of his Go- vernment, it appeared that large as those legal powers were, he had exceeded them ; and, while governing in the Queen's name, had distinctly violated the laws of the country. It is clear—admitted on all hands, we be lieve—that vice-regal privileges, even when wielded by a Whig-Radical, do not extend to the violation of the law. Two courses, therefore, are open—either to leave Lord Durham to bear the penalty of having violated the law, or to pass u law specially for his protection in this regard. He had violated the law, which was a fault, but then he had probably violated it through ignorance, which was a misfortune, and as he was the Queen's Representa tive, it was thought that on that account some courteous consideration might be shown him. The Conservatives, therefore, resolved upon the lenient course of passing such an Act as would exonerate Lord Durham from the conse quences of his illegal acts. That was their policy, and that i , now called rancorous and contemptible by those who wish to uphold not only Lord Durham but the pre sent Ministry. We see nothing rancorous in saving a political opponent from the consequences of his illegal acts, or contemptible in screening her Majesty's Repre sentative from the degradation of punishment for his mis takes. But these are Ministers who got in a great passion and abused the Conservative Lords for what they proposed, and who then, because they found they were in a difficulty from which they could not extricate themselves, consented to adopt the policy they had abuied. These are Ministers, who, after trying their utmlst to defend the ordinances of Lord Durham, advised the Queen to disallow them as il- legal. What is to be said of their conduct ? If there happened to be any stray epithets expressive of contempt lying about, which it were expedient to " use up," with re ference to the proceedings on Canadian affairs, does net this conduct afford rather a favourable opportunity for their application ? We opine that the contemptible policy, supposing there has been any such thing, is that of the men who, for the sake of office, consent to wield what they have described as the weapons of Lord Durham's foes, against their friend Lord Durham. The confusion of the hapless and irritated Ministe• rialists touching these Canadian affairs, seems to grow greater every day. It was but yesterday we found them quoting with apparent approbation the language of a Montreal newspaper, which, though indeed it upholds Lord Durham, upholds also the doctrines .of Ca nadian rebellion. This Montreal paper is, or seems to be, favourably looked upon, because it says that " men op posed by every old political association to Lord Durham, acquiesced in his appointment, simply because they felt confident that he would neither be fettered into inactivity, nor forced into blunder by the necessarily mischievous inter meddling of an authority three thousand miles of; with his every contemplated action." Now, if this be not sheer nonsense—if it he not a parcel of words without any meaning at all—it means that Canada ought to have a Government independent of the mother country, and that the Government of that province, by British councils, must necessarily be a mischievous intermed dling ! Is it to be understood that our Government ap proves of this doctrine ? If so, why is not Mr. Papineau the most excellent of Canadians in their sight, and Mr. Roe buck the most enlightened, among colonial statesmen ? If it be a rice that Canadian Government should be fettered by British intermeddling, the Canadian rebels are right, and they who resist them are wrong. Perhaps, how ever, it is only the despotism of Lord Durham that is to be held better than the Government of British laws. Any one but he requires to be " intermeddled " with, but his wisdom is better than all law, and should be above all in terference. Is that the doctrine of the Ministerialists ? If it be not, we wish they would tell us distinctly what is their doctrine regarding the Government of Canada ; for while they say that rebellion against British authority ahould be punished, and yet praise the assertion that the exercise of authority over Canada by the Government in Britain is necessarily mischievous, there is an apparent contradiction and a great perplexity, which no one save themselves can unravel.—illortring Post. SLAVERY IN THE FRENCH COLO NIES. The colonial question begins to dominate all others for the present in France. The colonists are exerting themselves to ward off the two evils by which they are assailed at once—emanci pation of their slaves, and their exclusion from the home market by the production of beet-root sugar. Each French colony has a delegate in Paris, salaried almost as largely as a minister. With this they have tempted liberal deputies and advocates to become their delegates and champions, witness M. Maugin. But the result has been obloquy to the deputy accepting the post, rather than profit to the colony. Guada loupe and Bourbon have just chosen Messrs. Dufaure and Laurence for their delegates. The former has refused, and it is not thought that the latter can accept. At the same time Nantes, Bordeaux, and other seaports have formed a commission for directing their efforts to pro cure a diminution of the duty on colonial sugar. The present delegates have prayed the Government for an ordinance per mitting the French colonies to export their sugar to other ports th an those of France. On this subject the Minister, not a ell knowing what course to take, has asked the advice of the Superior Council of Commerce. The members of this council being not in sufficient numbers in Paris, the advice, and con sequently the issuing of suah an ordinance, is deferred. According to statistical notices published by the present Minister of Marine, the four French colonies alone worthy of being taken into account contained the following free and slave population At the close of 1835 Martinique had a population of 116,031, of which 35,000 were free, without distinction of co lour, the rest were slaves. Of the 38,060 free, 29,000 were men of colour. Guadaloupe, at the end of 1835, counted 31,252 freemen, and 96,322 slaves ; and of the free two-thirds were men of colour. 13ourbon, at the end of 1836, counted about 40,000 free, and 70,000 slaves. French Guiana, at the end of 1836, counted 6,656 fres, and 16,705 slaves. Of the free little more than 1,000 were whites. The French Legislature has, therefore, to deal with a po pulation of about 260,000 slaves. The French Government under Louis XVIII. and Charles X. favoured or tolerated, not merely the slave system, but the slave trade. A solemn report of a parliamentary commission, presided by M. Passy, passed this judgment ; and, indeed the statesmen of the epoch scarcely denied it. M. de Chateau briand, in his recent work on the Congress of Verona, admits that he there opposed the efforts of the British plenipotentia ries, because, quoth that most egregious of political coxcombs, the zeal of England for the abolition of the slave trade is purely for her own interests, and to prevent other nations from profiting by what she has abandoned. From statesmen ac tuated by such principles nothing else could have been ex pected. In 1831 the abolition of the trade began to be se riously and sincerely acted on by France. In 1832 the patrones were legally entitled to their freedom. In 1833 the colonial legislatures were reformed, but to no purpose : the resistance to projects of amelioration from home were resisted even more strenuously in the new than in the old councils. In 1836 Government proposed issuing ordinances ensuring the private property or pecule of the slave, and at the same time his right of redemption. The colonial legislatures replied, " that slavery was the great social law of the colonies," and that the Government had no right to issue any such ordinance. It is thus evident that the contrary principle, that of abolition, must be decreed, prepared, and finally enforced by the mother country. The Chamber of Deputies are determined on passing some legis lative measure. To prepare one that will answer expecta tions in France, without exciting too much opposition in the colonies, is the present task and consideration of the French Cabinet. —Morning Chronicle. EXTRAORDINARY ACCOUCHEMENT.—At an early hour last Sunday morning, as Sergeant Cole, 17 G, was pass ing through Chiswell-street, he f oun d at t h e corner of .11opemaker-streeta very good-looking young woman in mo mentary expectation of becoming a mother. She said that she had been servant to Mr. May, a linen-draper in Chiswell street, who had compelled her to leave his house shortly be fore. The Sergeant found that the emergency was too press ing to admit even of an immediate removal to the workhouse, and he knocked up the landlord of the Ship wine -vaults, who readily allowed the young wo man t o b e taken into his, house and placed in the bar. The attendance of Mr. Leeson, a surgeon, was promptly obtained, and in a few minutes a fine child was ushered into the world. Shortly afterwards the mother and infant were conveyed t o S t. L u k e ' s work h ouse , where they are now in a thriving condition. On Monday evening last, a poor woman named Duane, residing in Pump-lane, near Moyderwell, left her infaiit child in the cradle, while she went out of her cabin on some business, leaving nobody in the house to take care of the infant. When, shocking to relate, on her return, she found the poor baby - nearly devoured by a hungry pie—the eyes and die face, with rrBaly taus of 1.1:c Lod: ) , rated and eaten. Thu poor innooeut must. Hive suileied dreadful torture before death put an end to its agony.— .Kerry Post. CORONERS' IN QUESTS Last evening at five o'clock an inquisition was taken by Mr. Payne, the city Coroner, in the medical students' room of Guy's Hospital, Southwark, on view of the body of George Osbourne, aged 40, who died in that institution under the following somewhat extraordinary circumstances. The inquiry was attended with considerable interest, it being alleged that the surgeons of the hospital had ill used the unfortunate person, and adopted improper medical treat ment. The jury-room was crowded with the students of that institution. Mr. William Frank Babington deposed, he was the house surgeon of the hospital, and attended the deceased imme diately on his admission, on Tuesday evening last ; he was labouring under lock jaw, which had arisen from the bite of a dog ; he was in a very dangerous state, and died from its ef fects yesterday forenoon. The bite was in the thick part of the left hand, and the wound, though slight, was perceptible. CORONER—Does lock jaw generally proceed from such in juries ? Witness—Very frequently. Anne Osbourne, who was very much affected, stated that she was the wife of the deceased, who had been a fellmonger, and resided in Russell-street, Bermondsey. On Friday week last, in the morning, her husband told her that he had been bit by a little dog, while playing with it on the night previous, and at the same time showed her his left hand, say ing it was very painful. She asked him how the dog was at the time ; his reply was, " Oh, it was snappish because I teased it a little." She knew that he was rather in liquor at the time, but not seeing the circumstance, could only state what the deceased had told her. Some days after he complained very much of his hand ; it became swollen, and blood came from the wound ; but not thinking that it would lead to anything dangerous, he did not apply for medical advice. She (witness) up to Saturday last applied bread and water poultices to the hand. On Tuesday last de ceased said to witness he was worse, that he had a violent pain at his back, and found his neck very stiff; so much so that he could not move his head. Two surgeons were then sent for, and they prescribed for him medicine, &c. In this state he continued till Tuesday, when he exclaimed, " Anne, I find that my jaw is locked, and am afraid of something dange rous," upon which the surgeons were sent for, and they or dered his immediate removal to the hospital, where he died yesterday forenoon. [The poor creature, who is left with a large family totally unprovided for, was absorbed in grief while giving her evidence.] A Juror—Did you know what kind of dog it was that 1:k him ? Witness—Yes, it was a small terrier, which was given him by some friends. CORONER—Was it in a rabid state at the time ? Witness —No, Sir, it was not. Since the event I have destroyed it. After her examination had concluded she asked the Coroner whether she might be allowed to say a few words on the conduct of the surgeons of the hospital ? On being replied to in the affirmative, she said that a few minutes previous to her husband's death, she went to see him, but, on going to his bedside, was ordered away by the surgeon, who was going to perform an operation, unsanctioned by the deceased, who prayed " For Heaven's sake not to do it ;" but he did by force, and killed him instantly. He even prayed to have five minutes' conversation with her, bat it was refused him; in fact the words were stifled in his mouth by the operation. He died instantly the operation was performed. A beast could not be treated worse than he was. All that he (her husband) wanted was a minute's conversation with her, as he was aware of the near approach of death. Mrs. Osbeurne added that Mr. Babington was the person who performed the operation. The CORONER to Mr. Babington—What was the nature of the operation ? Mr. Babington replied that he wished to explain all the circumstances detailed in the last witness's observations, in re ference to his conduct. When the unfortunate man was con veyed into the accident ward his case was hopeless. He was then in a starving condition. He ( Mr. B.) did all in his power to relieve him that night, and on the following day (yesterday), one of the principals of the institution Dr. Black, saw him. He gave directions to let him have nourishment as much as possible. To accomplish this, to get it into his mouth, one of the front teeth had to be taken out, in order to introduce a tube to supply the nourishment, which he did, and he died from the effects of drawing the tooth. CORONER—He prayed for a few minute's conversation with his wife, which was refused. Mr. Babington admitted that it was necessary to per form the operation immediately, to give him support, but he (Mr. B.) denied using any violence whatever. He told the deceased, when he refused to allow the operation, what would be the consequences, explaining to him that he could not survive long, and at length the deceased submitted. CORONER—But the operation was attended with instant death ? Mr. Babington replied it brought on spasms, which were ,he cause of dissolution. Mr. Stocker, apothecary to the hospital, was of opinion :hat the proceeding of Mr. Babington in the case in ques ion was perfectly correct, and he should have acted the same way. The Jury, after some further discussion, exonerated Mr. Babington of all improper treatment, or ill-usage, and re turned a verdict of .‘ Accidental Death." On Tuesday afternoon an inquest was Sold at the Horse-shoe and Magpie, - Bridge-street, Westminster, before Mr. HIGGS and a very respectable jury, on view of the body of Mr. John Fester Thorpe, a respectable tobacconist, residing at No. 3, in that street, who committed suicide under the circumstances stated in the following evidence : Jelin Vincent Edsell lived as shop-lad with the deceased for eight or nine months; he was in an extensive way of busi ness, and latterly kept very late hours. His master left home yesterday morning on business to the city, and returned in a cab about half-pest one o'clock. He then appeared to be much excited, and in about half an hour witness heard the report of a pistol, and found that his master had shot himself with a horse pistol through the head, as he stood by the side of his bed. Medical assistance was immediately rendered, but it was of no use, as the shot had instantaneously proved fatal. The deceased had a short time before been speaking to his broker, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Smithson, a solicitor, who were consulting, with him on the state of his affairs, which appeared to be very embarrassed. Mr. Walker and Mr. Smithson both stated that the affairs of the deceased were much embarrassed, and that his brother had come up from the country with a view to settle with his creditors, which he had effected by offering his acceptances at the rate of 10s. in the pound. This seemed to annoy the de ceased, who considered " his honour to have been compro mised" by such an arrangement ; and although he affected subsequently to think better of it, and be quite reconciled, it produced such an excitement in his mind that he blew his brains out. His creditors were perfectly satisfied wi th th e arrangements which had been entered into, and nothing could be more kind than the treatment he had received from his mother and brother, who, although the heaviest creditors, con sented to forego their claims, in order to enable him to pay his other creditors. The deceased had latterly been associated with idle characters, keeping late hours and being frequently in a state of intoxication, to which causes his insolvency was to be attributed. Mr. Eubel, a gentleman who lived in the upper part of the house with the deceased, stated many instances of the irregu lar hours kept by the deceased, and the indifferent character of the persons who constantly visited the shop of the unhappy man. Maria Painter, the servant of a tavern in the same street, which was much resorted to by the deceased, stated that he was perfectly sober on Sunday night when he went home. Several of the jury who were neighbours of the deceased corroborated the witnesses as to the bad character of the asso ciates of the deceased, to his late hours, &c. ; and that there could be no doubt that his embarrassments were occasioned by his intemperate habits. Verdict—Temporary Insanity. Yesterday evening an inquisition was taken before Mr. Stirling, in the Board-room of the Middlesex Hospital, on view of the body of a foreigner named M. de Ghessele, resid ing at No. 15, Upper Charlton-street, who committed self destruction in a very determined manner. It appeared that the unfortunate man, who was a profes sor and translator of languages, had been for some time past in a low desponding state of mind, and on Sunday afternoon was observed deliberately to open the window of the third floor front room in which he resided, mount the sill, and preci pitate himself into the street. He was picked up insensible, and bleeding profusely, in which state he was conveyed to the Middlesex Hospital, where he died shortly after. Verdict—" Temporary mental derangement." COMMISSION OF LUNACY. EXTRAORDINARY DELUSlONS.—Yesterday morning a Com mission of Lunacy wa3 opened before Commissioners PHILLI DIORE, C. K. MURRAY, and J. M. WEST, at the King's Head Tavern, Norwood, Surrey, to inquire into the state of mind of Mrs. Label Sprout, a widow lady, an inmate of a private lunatic asylun; at Norwood. The proceedings were considerably delayed in consequence of only eight jurymen attending out of twenty-four who had been summoned. Mr. Under Sheriff Abbott had to send about the neighbourhood, which is thinly populated, for tails men, to make up the requisite muster of jurymen ; and after nearly an hour's lapse of time a Court was formed. The Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER addressed the jury, arid explained the object of the inquiry, and added that it was not only necessary for them to find that this lady was a lunatic, but that she was so far of unsound mind as to be incapable of governing herself and her property, because it was not suffi cient to find her a lunatic to deprive her of her liberty and property. Mr. STEWART observed that he appeared before them as Counsel in support of the Commission. Mrs. Sprout had been a widow for the last fifteen years, and had lived with her sister a great portion of that time. He believed he should be able to show by the clearest evidence that the lady was of un sound mind, and utterly incapable of managing herself or her property. Among other extraordinary delusions under which she laboured was that of fancying herself an empress, and that her husband was Alexander, King of Bavaria—and that her uncle had married the daughter of a common hangman, named John McCraw. She also believed that she allowed M'Craw 100/ per year, and had done so for some time. Ano • ther delusion that existed in her mind was, that within the last six weeks she had been stripped and gagged at least ten times. On other occasions she imagines herself daughter of Frazer the King of Bavaria who married Aurora. She also calls herself the Prin cess Charlotte, and on being told that the Princess has been dead for some time, she asserts that she is Empress of the t" hole world except thei East Indies, which she state.; is to 3 hot. Sh e r: is !ici..l,l* .;,, and :1•:- - • , ii~e bi.tarci Daughter of Al.‘Crutv, the hafig-i - nad. One eo cum. stance, however, above all, proved beyond doubt the unfortu• nate state of this lady's mind, and that was, that it was ex- tremuly difficult to get her to change her linen—and she ob stinately persisted in not doing so, except in the presence of a police officer, whose presei?u , it was found necessary to o btain for the last twelve months. A great many witnesses were examined, whose evidence fully bore out the statements of the Learned Counsel. The unfor tunate object of the inquiry, on being visited by a de p utation from the Jury, put the state of her mind beyond a doubt, and a verdict was returned " That Mrs. Sprout is a lunatic, and has been so since the 22d of August, 1837, and is incapable of governing herself and her property." The unfortunate lady, it was stated in the course of the in vestigation, was possessed of considerable property. LORD WESTERN UPON THE SUB- JECT OF SOWING WHEAT. Lord Western has addressed a letter to Lord Rayleigh ea the advantage of increasing the quantity of seed wheat, and drilling it in at nine inches distance from row to row. From the letter, which appears to-day in the Essex He rald, we select the subjoined portions : " One objection, I have heard urged .by some persons, is, in my mind, a recommendation, viz. that it requires a great deal of attention, as indeed does the drill system generally- - the master's eye, good ploughing, even and equal sized stetches, &c., &c. Such a necessity forced upon some farmers, would be a great good to tbeFri. I certainly have often seen some of the most negligent and disgraceful work in ploughing and putting in wheat, particularly on clover leys ; and that in cases where other work in the farm may be fairly well done. It is almost incredible that such should be the case, but I confidently maintain that it often is so. . • I think I told you, my Lord, that I had (speaking in round numbers) 100 acres sown with wheat, and no failure of a plant in any instance ; in fact, as perfect a plant throughout as any person would desire. . . • • • . • I have gone through every field with my bailiff, and am of opinion that there arc fewer small ears than in a thin broad cast plant. I state this as matter of fact ; the reasoning upon it is another question. . . • • • • • I have no claim to originality in it; I adopted it, I believe I told you, upon my last visit to Holkham, ten years ago nearly : my friend, the Earl of Leicester, sanguine upon the advantages of it (nor less so two or three of his most ex perienced tenants), urged me to make the trial; and, from that time to this, I have, without exception, put in all MY, wheat in that way ; and though the precise quantity o f seer may vary according to land and time of sowing, I contend that a larger quantity than is generally sown would much increase our national produce. I have never put in less than three bushels per acre ; and I may venture to add, upon the recol lection of my bailiff as well as my own, that I have never failed in my plant of 'wheat since that time. I come now to speak of the probable produce this year. Ido not hesitate to stat e , my opinion that I shall average very nearly, if not quite a lobo. an acre, (40 bushels) upon the full hundred acres; 1 3 P° 11 ninety out of the hundred I say it with great confidence • • . When I speak of a load an acre, I mean the . farmer's acre, and not the landlord's. I allow for hedges' ditches, &c., about seven per cent. Last year I grew, uP° ll my farms of Felix Hall and Rivenhall Hall, 497 prates. 7 bushels upon 105 a. 2R. 38r., landlord's measure ; deduct seven for waste from 105 a. 2R. 38e., and there remain s Ha. 2s. 38r., and we find an excess of 7 quarters 7 bu shels above a load an acre." • WANT OF A NATIONAL OR METROPOLIT A ; LIBRARY OF MUSIC. —( From the Musical World.)—ln one° our former numbers we adverted to the lamentable state of the library of the British Museum in reference to musical work s ' and the slight means that collection afforded to the student , i ° tracing the progress of the art, either in this or other Collo' tries. We find this subject has been taken up by Mr. E. 'l n aY' lor, the Gresham Professor of Music, who. proposes to fon by the aid of a general subscription, a Metropolitan LibrarY i e Music, the particulars of which are explained by that gen ti f:, man in another part of this number. We cordially concur the object which Mr. Taylor seeks to attain ; but we still thin' that the Metropolitan Library should be at the British M u , - seum. This Institution' already possesses many valuab'e works in the science ; which are, nevertheless, in such a st e t te . r of confusion, that their existence is almost unknown, an d, t e want of classification, access to them is almost impos sible _ There is, however, in this national receptacle of literature and the fine arts the germ of a Musical Library; and Govern" ment might easily and effectually forward the plan in cente in t : plation by appointing a librarian in the musical departntells and causing such purchases, and selections from foreign s ource to be made, as would render the collection at once an oroac_ ment to the metropolis, and an invaluable source of refereut._; to the members of the profession. In the repositories of . r ° l _, British Museum might also ultimately rest the splendid bb _ 3 1.1 ries which some few of our professors and amateurs are to i l e to possess. Within these ten years we have witnessed f dispersion of the libraries collected by the zeal and en er g y Messrs. Cletnenti, Jaceb, Charles Wesley, G wilt, Dannea.l.9o Grcatorex, 1-leather, Rev. George King, and Messrs. C .. I t it he and Budd, libraries which collectively embraced some °L eg rarest gems of English and foreign print. Of what sacrile7_,, have we b witnesses, through the ignorance of auction. and apparently still greater ignorance and apathy e vinced 4 the majority of our professors? At the sale of M. Clernenijh library the most rare manuscripts were knocked clown' eac lot at the paltry sum of a few shillings. One lot, which soldf for five shillings, contained a large bundle of t i e° fug u l„ a e ° Sebastian Bach, the majority in the composer's handwr't'7, with his emendations ! The appointment of an officer a t tn . British Museum, who should devote his attention to the aecl e ,, l h sition of a Musical Library, would prevent the repetition of st t % a sacrifice of property, and probably induce our wealthy tours to bequeath, or present, many rare and invaluable sP ee mens of the learning of past ages. • ATTEMPT TO POISON A FAMILY.—On lg°110; day ev en i ng , a y oung girl, named Mary Anne Ryan' t he brought up bef ore th e Liverpool Police Magistrates , uri - i_kfr , serious charge o f h av i ng attempte d to p o i son the family• Power, of Ford- s t ree t. I t a p pears t h a t th e p r isoner is an Ly prentice with a respectable confectioner, and on Thu r .', to last, gave a vea l p i e to a b oy , di rect i ng hi m to cam e I ",ie Mrs. Power, i n F or d- street , an d h e did as d es i re d. Tha was wrapped in a paper, on which was signed " Sara" ove r, nor," who, it a pp eare d, was an acqua i n t ance o f Mrs. , ete. Mrs. Power and the children partook of the pie withou t v„ te s ceiving any thi ng p ecu li ar i n t h e taste , b ut i n a few oi n " t h after she e x p er i ence d a pricking sensation about her W tea and throat, w hi c h b ecame exce edi ng l y pa i n f u l, an d o. ol ,„ °° „, nu cr a before it di e d away, to a sca ldi ng sensat i on . I s ing minutes afterwards she was seized with most violent fi l led in her stoma c h. Sh e felt as though her bowels Were:rae/0 with scalding w a t er . Sh e went to b e d, b ut s h e w as so "%iet , together that sh e was una bl e to rema i n i n any o ther P? i s i . ber than on her hands an d k nees . Af ter s h e was taken it little boy was seized with precisely similar symptorns . „ se ri other child and the yo u n g woman were nex t taken i'" w ere with them also the pains, swellings, and vomitings t t he e9u ;By violent. They did not taste anything fetid am ° ba d pie, but after eating it their mouths tell as though been burned, and their lips and palates were blistered. t he Power stated that on Friday week she had a quarrel Wit!'.oole prisoner, who abused her and struck the child. The P rt b b e ieg was afterwards taken into custody, and on her boxer o re searched, two packets, containing some sort of powder , 4 . 9 of found, which was discovered to be arsenic. The cooteu',oo the stomach were also subjected to the usual tests, but Su ct. difficulties arose in the case, and the prisoner was rernag d f.../ GENTLEMEN'S ELEGANT FLAT Lice WATCHES are offered, price Nine Guineas each, °L "'AO suited for wear in the waistcoat pocket, engine turned cese s % g are enamel dial, and hand to mark the seconds. The mo vemen - 0 0' on the celebrated horizontal construction, with going fuzee t° at time goinv while winding, jewelled, &c., and warranted , a e ,, e o COX SAVORY'S, Watchmaker, &e., No. 47, Cornhill, (se doors from Gracechurch-street), London. N.B. Second-hand Watches, Plate, &c. purchased in exchauf>oi theyors. 11 In TBS. On the 21st inst., the lady of John H. Taylor, Esq., of Ifolis hotu e, Crouch-hill, of a son. he 19th ;t, th - if lf the Be'' At Sarum-street, on the ith inst., to wife o Timson, of a daughter. i‘err' On the 15th inst., at Dittisham, Devon, the Lady Henry of a son. Zil °i' On the 7th inst., at Kingsbridge, Devon, the lady o f R. 0 q. n Es, of a daughter. O the 20th inst., in Mecklenburgh-square,. the lady of Wlllls Burra, Esq., of a son. ro sborr On the 18th inst., the wife of T. Hamber, Esq., of na park, Islington, of a daughter. -- t O A On the 7th inst., at St. Mary-le-Strand-place, Old Ne i ' the lady of Captain Ricketts, Madras Army, of a d a ughte a r l iotelli, On the 21st inst., the l a dy o f J. J enn i ngs , E sq ., of a C±.--- ,-,,1e, MA RR lED. ~,,,11 "A 1 On the 18th inst., at Aladron, Cornwall, William -1-' -- , c an d ° second son of John Gale, Esq., of Bouyerie-street, Lona ° ,"' tote' Balham, Surrey, to Josepha, second daughter of the late J. t} ,° Esq., of Penzance. fsc.t v e, On the 18th inst., at Cheltenham, Edward Hawke , „,..'IY o f youngest son of the late J. Hawks, Esq., of Newcastle-ul?",htlei, to Mary Anne, only daughter of the late Rev. Henry I nl i" d o h Charwclton, Northamptonshire. rr H. 11. On the 21st inst., at St. George's, Bloomsbury, A ter of berton, Esq., of Hampton, to Fanny Hughes, third d aug e, r Twining, Esq., of Bedford-place, Russell-square. l • On the 21st inst., at St. Pancras Church, Henry P.ii. p rel.' Esq., of Gower-street, surgeon, to Caroline, daughter of _fie gal, Esq., of Upper Gower-street. t.: ,... Cinbe On the l'ith inst., at Cochno Hou s e, Durnbartene'' - ' of - Henry Noble, Esq., of Oporto, to Agnes, third dog bter A late James Graham, Esq. p feV o i. On the 21st inst., at Chi g well, E ssex , Henry ilu ss Per. et Registrar of the Court of Chancery, third son of t he youtigto Hussey, late Rector of Sandhurst, Kent, to Eliza. Atlanis?tor to daughter of J. G. Watford, E sq ., o f W oo dlands, Solict daughter Customs. jail At Paris, Count Taille des Essarts. to Agnes Leuli a '„dort of the late John Vetch, M.D., o f t h e Ch ar t e r-house - "°— ---- Queen -street, On the 21st inst., at Queepn --------- ar ies l2 Miss Augusta Kemp, aged 59. .' ' . - (3n the 20th inst., aged 49, Joseph Lytl goe ...s c l'' v of P se 1. street, St- z , ~I, ' • On the 20th inst., at Gloucester-place,"ti.cn tis`:=town' = Batley, aged 68. n 0 0°14 Golden-cquaPe, r On the 16th inst.,at 1-1 bl d IT Ch 'es --ich am e on, ants, ar ar t ' aged 20. ' e t Ste°llarr. ... On the 19th inst ., S • -B 1 1%1 al unningdale er •s, rs. _..„ !,,q,„. At Brighton, Mary Ann, widow Of the late F. Dren',,,l s , P" On the I.sth inst in Pk t t 1 r ton, Joseph '' ~ Park - street, -s ree , s iri its aged 68. 100, scl•' At Upper Islington, on the 20th inst., Jayn es Pee gr.. his 78th year. _,,, a re, On the 20th inst., in London-street , Fitzroy-DT- Wal, , ,lev, a! --.1, P:7. t - 00 6 ' f t 9 I : n Printed and Published by MUHDO i n filo °° 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Str an `" of Middlesex.—Thursday, August 23, 1838•